Maybe next time, the feds will wise up and get a month-to-month pay in advance eavesdropping plan and avoid bill shock.

"Modern" is kind of a weasel word, isn't it? I guess it means: "As far back as I can remember without a time machine, hypnosis or thinking too hard." Or really, whatever the author wants it to mean.

French, Italian, whatever.

True -- ignorance is bliss. "Standard" cheese in the US is often labeled as containing "enzymes" without any description of the origin. So you never really know . . .

It really is eye-opening to make some of the foods you usually buy in processed form yourself, from scratch. Cheese, tofu, sauerkraut, beer, whatever. Even just reading a copy of "The Joy of Cooking" is enlightening, since it describes -- in detail -- the process of producing all kinds of things you never thought much about because they were readily available at the supermarket.

Both Kosher and Halal dietary laws mandate separation of milk and meat.

That's kinda what I'm trying to say about our assumptions and reactions. We make an assumption that recording is anonymous and un-monitored simply because the human operator isn't visible. While it's possible that no one's watching a security camera, and also possible that no one will ever look at the recording unless something happens that needs to be reviewed, that's not necessarily so. It just seems that way because we're not watching the watcher. "Ignorance is bliss," as the saying goes. A CCTV operator could be following your every move as you walk around Macy's or chat up that attractive number at the local watering hole. Probably not happening, but we have no way of knowing either way.

Seems people don't like being recorded by individuals they can actually see in the flesh, and just accept the recording of themselves by whoever mounts a camera on the ceiling or wall anywhere. And I don't think it's just the tacit acceptance of being monitored and recorded as a condition of darkening someone's door: I suspect that the average person would be far more uncomfortable with a mall cop pointing a camera at them in person vs. monitoring them from a back office with an array of pannable cameras as they moved about the premises. Even though the net result is the same, it's the apparent human element that I suspect makes Average Joe uncomfortable.

An aerosol is "a colloid of fine solid particles or liquid droplets, in air or another gas". The particular aeorsol (CFCs) referred to by parent is explained by a sibling post, so no need to repeat here. Point is, that an aerosol can be almost anything gaseous or that can be made fine enough to behave sort of "gas like", including dust, VOCs, smoke, etc. That's how the term is used in TFA: terpenes -- not CFCs -- are the substances "dissolved" in air.

Yes, these are the terpenes that Reagan and James Watt (Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, not the inventor) were referring to. While they were sorta correct that you can't eliminate all the VOCs that contribute to smog by curtailing their emission by human activities, it was presented in the "complete solution or nothing at all" sort of fallacy. The whole thing got widely ridiculed -- albeit for the wrong reasons, even though it deserved it -- and Reagan distanced himself, throwing Watt under the bus. Or at least that's how I remember it. Memory might be kind of hazy, mostly due to all the smog back then.

The economist says there's never a shortage, just a shortage at a given price. E.g., Robert R. Prechter, Jr: "In a free market, shortages are impossible; there is only a price. Rubies and Picassos are scarce, but there's never a shortage of them. You can buy all you want any day of the week. Just pay the price." You can have all you want if you're willing to pay more.

(Emphasis mine.)

Firstly -- and I'm not trying to be sarcastic or snarky here -- do you want qualified people that are "open to and reasonably good at learning," or people "that can show, in an interview, that they're open to and reasonably good at learning"? Because these aren't necessarily the same thing. You're looking for someone who interviews well, probably because you don't have that many other good methods of readily determining his qualifications. But that can be a problem, because a good interviewee isn't necessarily a good on the job learner. A worst-case scenario is hiring a guy that sounds good but is just a great salesman while overlooking a guy who would do a great job but doesn't present himself as well as the other guy.

Now one can certainly respond that candidates for jobs should be able to present themselves well. Being able to "sell" oneself obviously works. But that's solving a different problem. It's solving the "I didn't get hired" problem from the candidate's POV, not the "I can't find a good candidate" problem that HR has.

Also, you say you're not trying to push down wages. But of course you are. Not maliciously. You just don't want to spend more than you have to, do you? I don't go to the grocery store looking to needlessly spend more than I have to on fruit. But on the other hand, you're not usually gonna get top quality produce at bargain prices. You pay your money and make your choice.

True. What they pay you tell you how much they value you. Sounds backwards at first, but if they pay you more it makes them find you more valuable. Think about your own experiences: when you pay more for one choice than another, it reinforces your belief that it was worth more.

You gotta do what you gotta do, but keep in mind that pay cuts are permanent. You're never going to get back to what you'd be making if you kept the better paying position. Maybe you'll be the exception, but probably not.

So if you're thinking that eventually you'll get back on track salary-wise in your job decision calculus, run the pros and cons again with that in mind. Some things are worth more than money, just make sure you know how much more.

The thing with the cold fjord posts is they're almost too predictable. Someone states something like "NSA doing nasty unconstitutional stuff" and there's a immediately a naive rebuttal like: "Nuh uh, not true, you're the nasty one." Like he's supposed to be caught, maybe to distract from the real -- more subtle -- shills. A "search satisfaction error" exploit.

If there weren't fracking to be done then the water wouldn't be needed, then there wouldn't be a water tower or the extra truck traffic, so it's not unrelated to fracking. Perhaps not about groundwater or earthquakes or whatever, but still an issue.

And this actually brings up a less-often mentioned concern about gas extraction -- the conflict between water and energy resources. You need water to produce energy (and energy to "produce" water). IEEE Spectrum had a good feature on this.